Politics. Sex. Science. Art. You know, the good stuff.

Stephanie Zvan is an analyst by trade, but she's paid not to talk about it. She is also one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.

Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.

Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.

Naturally, having made that post true to the best of my ability and knowledge, I asked.

@szvan: .@DJGrothe What falsehoods would those be, D. J.? Be specific. @GretchenKoch

‏@DJGrothe: @szvan I’ve communicated with you zero times in years. Not about to start now. Obsess over someone else. @GretchenKoch

‏@szvan: .@DJGrothe You’ll claim I’m lying but you won’t back it up. Of course. @GretchenKoch

I guess I should be happy he didn’t tell me he was going to forward me the email that contained all the proof. That’s his MO when asked to back up his side of a tale, the promised email that never arrives.

He is right, to the extent that I do have an MO. That MO just happens to be that I don’t let damaging lies like Grothe’s stand when I have the power and the information to knock them down.

Grothe’s MO is to lie to improve his own situation, then refuse to back up his claims. Mine is to dismantle his lies. I like my MO better.

Update: As Tom notes in the comments, someone is trying to make the laughable argument that Grothe wasn’t talking about Amy in his tweet. Not only does that make no sense in the context of his tweet, but as someone pointed out to me, this isn’t even the first time he’s used the accusation of personality disorders and alcoholism.

@DJGrothe: @gthnk There are a lot of mean girls in atheism etc. But go easy on them: don’t discount the role of alcoholism and personality disorders.

For anyone who might be unaware, “mean girls” is Sara Mayhew’s preferred term for women who don’t want to hang out with her after she’s put so much work into harassing them and their friends. Grothe has been openly sympathetic to her complaints.

So if you’d like to claim Grothe meant someone else, you’re going to need to come up with a better explanation.

I’m available if anyone would like to fact check anything that happened in regards to LAWAAG or the people attempting to get in the way of, or stop the group from peaceably assembling during it’s planning meetings. But hey, I’m sure D.J wasn’t talking about my group when he made those accusations though. How could he? He has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with the group and does not work for CFI or for me. Anything he would hear would have to be second-hand or as is so often his case, completely made-up to encourage hatred of the people he has decided not to like.

Oh, but Amy, haven’t you heard? There’s absolutely no reason to think–nor, in fact, any way to grammatically interpret–DJ’s comments as being about you in that tweet he wrote in response to comments about you! How silly of you to make that totally irrational leap!

Oh, but Amy, haven’t you heard? There’s absolutely no reason to think–nor, in fact, any way to grammatically interpret–DJ’s comments as being about you in that tweet he wrote in response to comments about you! How silly of you to make that totally irrational leap!

It’s well beyond parody at this point, isn’t it?

Unfortuntely, it’s good enough for Grothe’s purposes. The sort of people he’s writing for aren’t the sort of people to check sources.

As Brian Dunning has aptly proven, skeptics learn a lot about how people are tricked and manipulated. What a lot of movement skeptics fail to remember is that they are people who can be tricked and manipulated. Fallacies exist for a reason, and it’s not entirely due to shitty argumentation. It’s because we’re wired to find them convincing.

As an active participant (Hey! charter member, even) of LAWAAG, I’m constantly disappointed by the ridiculous brouhaha going on outside and around the group. However, that has not dampened my appreciation and enthusiasm for the group at all.

It’s a bit like being in a log cabin during a blizzard. Outside it’s all howling wind but inside it’s cozy and warm. Just the perfect atmosphere for camaraderie. Sure, we might discuss the blizzard at times. It’s right outside and it’s loud. But the group isn’t about that and never was. It’s about being in a room of intelligent and articulate women who share the same interests. There simply aren’t any other groups like that in LA. (or anyplace else that I know of.)

Co-ed groups are fine for most and I’m happy for those who enjoy them. I didn’t feel comfortable in any of them and the groups I left had no interest in trying to make me feel included. LAWAAG does. I could invite any of my friends who are on the fence without having to rehearse an apology for the inevitable faux-pas. And honestly, the conversations I’ve had there have been far more interesting. A room full of women has a different energy and it’s amazing.

I know that a few people are enjoying the drama too much to let it go but I really wish they’d just ignore us. I left their groups rather than bog down productive discussions with infighting. They have a place that reflects their values and they can work together to further their goals (many of which I share.) I just want the same thing.

This is the second time I have seen Grothe use mental illness and alcohol dependency as slurs against those he does
not agree with. And if I see it again I shall be convinced it is a deliberate use of phrase and not just a mere coincidence
It is so easy to dismiss opponents by casting aspersions on their ability to function rather than engage through rational
discourse. Even if those things were true it would still be wrong to use them as casual ad homs. For once you start doing
that you have lost the argument. And which is somewhat ironic given that they are employed as a means of winning them